Delirium prevalence and incidence in… | 2025

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

48/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. How common it is

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

length of stay, need for a higher level of care, and mortality after discharge in patients with and without delirium. Of 240 patients assessed, 14% (n = 33) fulfilled DSM-V criteria for delirium in the emergency department, and 8% (n = 17) of the remaining 207 patients developed delirium later during the hospitalisation. Only 4 of the 50 patients with delirium (8%) had a documented diagnosis of delirium in their discharge summary. For patients with delirium, the current hospital admission was more often a readmission (42% vs. 18%, p < 0.001). Delirium patients also had longer hospitalisations (4 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001), and higher 9-month mortality (52% vs. 14%, p = 0.002), corrected for age, sex and severity of acute illness by The National Early Warning Score 2. Delirium was common and underdiagnosed in our study and associated with unfavourable outcomes for the patients. Delirium prevention, identification and management should be key priorities for the health care system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our article does not report results of a health care intervention, and the protocol is not registered in a trial registry.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Hella, M. N. P., Soennesyn, H., Hetland, H. B., Vik‐Mo, A. O., Djuv, A., Sunde, A. L., et al. (2025). Delirium prevalence and incidence in acutely admitted older patients: an observational cohort study. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06903-8

Vancouver

Hella MNP, Soennesyn H, Hetland HB, Vik‐Mo AO, Djuv A, Sunde AL, et al. Delirium prevalence and incidence in acutely admitted older patients: an observational cohort study. BMC Geriatrics. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06903-8. PMID: 41420216.

BibTeX

@article{hella2025-41420216,
  author  = {Hella, Mathias Nikolai Petersen and Soennesyn, Hogne and Hetland, Hanne Brit and Vik‐Mo, Audun Osland and Djuv, Ane and Sunde, Anita Lenora and Oftedal, Rune Tord Wathne and Watne, Leiv Otto and others},
  title   = {{Delirium prevalence and incidence in acutely admitted older patients: an observational cohort study}},
  journal = {BMC Geriatrics},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12877-025-06903-8},
  pmid    = {41420216},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06903-8}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 33 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

length of stay, need for a higher level of care, and mortality after discharge in patients with and without delirium.
Of 240 patients assessed, 14% (n = 33) fulfilled DSM-V criteria for delirium in the emergency department, and 8% (n = 17) of the remaining 207 patients developed delirium later during the hospitalisation.
Only 4 of the 50 patients with delirium (8%) had a documented diagnosis of delirium in their discharge summary.
For patients with delirium, the current hospital admission was more often a readmission (42% vs. 18%, p < 0.001).
Delirium patients also had longer hospitalisations (4 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001), and higher 9-month mortality (52% vs. 14%, p = 0.002), corrected for age, sex and severity of acute illness by The National Early Warning Score 2.

Why it matters

Delirium was common but underdiagnosed in acutely admitted older patients and was linked to longer hospital stays and higher mortality. The findings highlight the need for better prevention, identification, and management of delirium in hospitals.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants33
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 48/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC Geriatrics)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	BMC Geriatrics: journal h-index 153 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	33 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 2 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.7 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 2 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Anne Katrine Bergland: h-index 7 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41420216)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	48 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in How common it is from nearby years

Also tagged “palliative”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “palliative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on How common it is

See all studies in How common it is →